ROGER OF POITOU

EVERY student of Lancashire history very early meets with the name of Roger of Poitou. Almost every book he reads

tells him that William the Conqueror granted to Roger a large part of what has since become the county of Lancaster. Un­ fortunately it tells him very little more. For further information, he must search carefully for stray references in contemporary chronicles, in local charters, and above all, in the numerous entries in Domesday Book for various parts of the country. Because of the greatness of the one. and the wickedness of the other, we know very much more of Roger's father and eldest brother than we do of Roger himself, and this information is of the utmost assistance in helping us to a better understanding of the lesser known members of the family. When all the various scraps of information are brought together, the picture of Roger of Poitou which emerges, looks something like this.

He was the third surviving son of Roger Montgomery and his wife, Mabel Talvas, heiress of the great Norman house of Belleme. Roger Montgomery was the close friend and adviser of William the Conqueror, (1) by whom he was raised to one of the highest positions in the Norman nobility. During the invasion of England, Roger had been left behind as one of the council of regency in Normandy,' 21 but not long afterwards, he came over here, and was made lord of Arundel, and, later, earl of Shrewsbury. His family consisted of five sons and four daughters, with later on another son born of his second marriage. His first marriage took place c. 1050, (3) and Roger of Poitou, the third son, could hardly have been born much before 1056. We do not know whether he had any sisters older than himself, nor do we know the date when he was given the lordship of what is now Lancashire. It was probably not before 1072, on account of his extreme youth, and it may even have been as late as 1075, at which time his father was made earl of Shrewsbury, another Marcher lordship.

The year of Roger's marriage is also obscure, but almost certainly it was not later than 1080, since by the time Domesday

111 William of Poitiers, Cesta Giiillehni Duds Normannoritm et Regis Anglorum, ed. R. Foreville (1952), p. 38.

(2) Ordericus Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiaslica, ed. A. Le Prevost and L. Delisle (1838-55), Vol. 2, p. 178.

131 D. C. Douglas, William the Conquerer, pp. 60, 94.185

TA

BL

E

1

TH

E F

AM

ILY

OF

R

OG

ER

O

F PO

ITO

U

oo ON

dau.

an

d he

ires

s of

Wm

. T

alva

s,

lord

of

Bel

lem

e an

d A

lenc

onM

urde

red

1082

inM

ABEL

=

RO

GER

MON

TGOM

ERY

c. 1

050

visc

ount

of

Hie

moi

s,lo

rd o

f A

rund

el,

earl

of S

hrew

sbur

yd.

109

4

=

AD

ELIZ

A

dau.

of

Eve

rard

of

Pusa

y

EVER

ARD

Cha

plai

n to

Hen

ry 1

ROBE

RT O

F BE

LLEM

E =

A

GN

ES,

d. a

fter

113

0 da

u. o

fG

uy,

coun

t of

Pon

thie

u

HU

GH

earl

of

Shre

wsb

ury

d. 1

098

OS.

P.

ROG

ERd.

aft

er11

13 b

utbe

fore

112

9

ALM

ODIS

da

u. o

f A

udeb

ert

IF,

coun

t de

la

( M

arch

e,

J d.

bef

ore

1129

Se

e T

able

2

I I

I I

I I

ARN

ULF

, ear

l of

Pem

brok

e

PHIL

IP t

he c

lerk

EMM

A, a

bbes

s of

A

lmen

eche

s

MA

UD

, wif

e of

R

ober

t of

Mor

tain

MA

BEL,

wif

e of

H

ugh

of N

euch

atel

SYBI

L, w

ife o

f R

ober

t fi

tz-H

amon

78

O o m 50

O T1

-8 o H

O d

ROGER OF POITOU 187

Book was compiled, in 1086, he is everywhere referred to as Rogerus Pictavensis, a name which must have taken some years to become universally accepted. His wife was Almodis, heiress of her brother. Boson III, count de La Marche, in the province of Poitou.' 41 Domesday Book shows Roger as having had manors not only in "Lancashire", but also in Yorkshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire. Derby­ shire, and Hampshire. One very curious feature of these Domes­ day Book entries is that Roger is shown to have recently lost possession of many of his lands, which are said to be in the hands of the king. No reason is given for this, and we are left to conjecture whether it is due to Roger's association with Williams' rebellious eldest son, Robert, or to his refusal to take the Salisbury Oath, or to some other unknown reason. (3>

On the death of the Conqueror in the following year, and the accession of his second son, William Rufus. to the English crown, we find the whole Montgomery family in open rebellion, attempting to put the easy-going Duke Robert on the throne. This led to their capture at the siege of Rochester Castle, but after his subsequent ransom, we find another dramatic change in Roger's fortunes. He is obviously restored to royal favour, and probably he also recovered his lost lands, for we next find him in 1094 acting on his king's behalf in Normandy, against Duke Robert and the French king. 16 ' Once again he is on the losing side, and has to buy his freedom, and it is an interesting possibility that he may have founded the Benedictine Priory in Lancaster in the same year as a thank offering for his release.' 7 * From this period also date his gifts to Shrewsbury Abbey in memory of his father, to the canons of St. Oswald of Nostell, (8> and to the Abbey of Charroux on his wife's estates in La Marche. <9) Perhaps most important of all, this last decade of the eleventh century saw the establishment of his castle at Lancaster, with all its far-reaching consequences for the later development of the town and the county. 10

In the year 1100 came the accession of Henry I to the English throne, and yet another rebellion in favour of Duke Robert, supported as before by the troublesome Montgomery brothers Like the previous uprisings, this also was a failure, but this time there was to be no reconciliation. Two years later, after

141 G. Thomas, Les Contes de la Marche, p. 40.151 V. H. Galbraith, The Making of Domesday Book (1961), pp. 187-8. "" Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. 49.171 Materials for the history of the church at Lancaster, Chetham Soc., N.S.

Vol. 26.(8 > V.C.H., Vol. 2, p. 10 n.191 D. P. de Monsabert, Archives historiques dn Poitou, Vol. 39, p. 112.(1 °» V.C.H., Vol. 2, p. 182.

TA

BL

E

2

TH

E

DE

SCE

ND

AN

TS

OF

RO

GE

R

OF

POIT

OU

oo

oo

IA

UD

EB

ER

T II

Id.

bet

wee

n 11

45-1

168

ROG

ER O

F PO

ITOU

=

AL

MOD

IS,

COUN

TESS

OF

LA

MA

RCH

E

=

ORE

NG

ARD

E

AUDE

BERT

IV

Sold

La

Mar

che

to H

enry

II

d. 1

180

=

MlR

AB

LE

IM

ARQU

ISd.

bet

wee

n11

74-1

177

O.S

.P.

BOSO

N IV

d.

aft

er 1

119

BOSO

N V

d.

aft

er 1

172

IM

ARQU

ISE

=

WIL

LIA

M

I -

O.S

.P.

EU

DE

S

IId.

aft

er 1

119

I

PON

CE

=

VU

LGRI

N

See

Tab

le 3

MAR

QUIS

E =

G

UY

OF

LIM

OGES

73

O

O

m

TO o

O H O c

ROGER OF POITOU 189

making the most careful preparations against them, Henry banished the whole family from England, and confiscated all their possessions here.

Of the three surviving brothers, Robert, the eldest, retired to his Norman estates, where his cruelty and lawlessness made him the most detested man of his age. Arnulf, the youngest, became an outlaw for the next twenty years, but Roger retired to his wife's estates in La Marche. and took no further part in English politics.

Though he disappears from these shores for ever, some account of Roger's descendants may perhaps be of interest.

His family consisted of three sons, Audebert, Boson, and Eudes, and one daughter, Ponce, married to Vulgrin, count of Angouleme. We have only one surviving reference to Roger during these later years, and that is in a notice concerning a local monastery which can be dated no earlier than 1113, (11> but by 1129, we know from charter evidence that both he, his wife and their two younger sons were all dead. Roger was succeeded as count by his eldest son, Audebert, who in due course was followed by his son, also of the same name. This man, the last of his line, had a most tragic life. His two children both pre-deceased him, leaving no issue; he repudiated his wife because of her infidelity, and he was involved in numerous insurrections against his overlord, Henry II of England. Tiring of the life he led, he desired to make the pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and before his departure, he sold his patrimony to Henry II for 15,000 angevin livres, 20 mules, and 20 palfreys. He was successful in reaching Jerusalem, but on the return journey, he died at Constantinople on 29 August 1180. 11 - 1

The descendants of Roger and Almodis, through their daughter, Ponce, countess of Angouleme, make much more interesting reading. Their great, great-granddaughter, Isabella, married King John of England, and she is thus an ancestress of all our subsequent sovereigns. 1131 In view of this, it seems rather curious that although innumerable references are made to our queen as the descendant of John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, no mention is ever made of her as the descendant of a much earlier lord of Lancaster, Roger of Poitou. It would appear a form of poetic justice that he, with whom the recorded history of our county may be said to begin, should still, in spite of his banishment, through his descendants, be closely connected with its government today. R SCHOFIELD

1111 G. Thomas, op. cii., p. 106. <m Ibid., pp. 40-51.(131 H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, The Governance of Medieval England,

p. 323.

TA

BL

E

3

TH

E D

ES

CE

ND

AN

TS

OF

PO

NC

E,

DA

UG

HT

ER

O

F

RO

GE

R O

F P

OIT

OU

PONC

E =

V

ULG

RIN

II

coun

t of

A

ngou

lem

e

WIL

LIA

M I

V

=

m E

MM

A, d

au.

of A

dem

ar I

II o

f L

imog

es

(Tai

llefe

r)

(zl M

ARG

UER

ITE,

dau

. of

Ray

mon

d of

Tur

ennc

d.

117

8

VU

LGRI

N I

II

MA

TILD

Aw

ard

of k

ing

of E

ngla

ndco

unte

ss

de

la

Mar

che

in h

er o

wn

righ

t

WIL

LIA

M V

AD

EMAR

=

A

LICI

A D

E CO

URTE

NAY

ISAB

ELLA

=

JO

HN

OF

ENG

LAN

D

HELI

EAL

MOD

IE

=

d. 1

246

d. 1

216

«' A

MAN

IEU

IV,

SIRE

D'A

LBRE

T(2)

BER

NARD

VI

COM

TE D

E BR

OSSE

O

O

rn TJ

O H

O

HEN

RY I

II